Isn't it against the Geneva convention to use a 50 Cal on troops?

Question

I remember when I used the 50 cal in training, instructor said that it is against the geneva convention to use the 50 cal on soldiers. My instructor said "You're not shooting individual soldiers, you are shooting their canteens" That was quite a long time ago.

I notice that US troops are using 50 cal sniper rifles and there seem to be machine guns used to. What's the deal with this? Is it against or not against the Geneva convention?

In response to the comment mentioning a lack of uniforms on the targets.

Does that mean those combatants have no rights? And does that mean all is fair in war? And does that mean you support terrorism?

Answer 1

Yup, it is against the Geneva Convention to use a 50 cal on troops in an opposing army......

Just show me the uniformed troops we are using them against.

About your edit:

A non uniformed combatant has ZERO rights according to the Geneva Convention and can be summarily executed on spot.

Thats what they do to spies.

Fair is not even part of the equation in war.... as my chief used to tell me F**K Fair.

No I did my time in the sand box, I do not support terrorists in any way, infact I think this war would go alot smoother if we did not take prisoners and just executed the terrorists on the spot.

Answer 2

I'd like to see where in the Geneva Convention it says that, -

they still say you are not shooting them, just whatever is behind them(it's not your fault if they moved in front of the shot at the last second..)

since the enemy isn't following the convention, why should we? we should be able to do the same things to them as they are doing to us!

if sent down range, i'm taking a laser with me......that will light them up!

Answer 3

The .50 cal is used by the Australian SAS to take out key infantry targets at ranges longer than 800m which is what their conventional sniper rifles are most effective to. ofcourse use for disabling mortor tubes, boat, anything else light they are also used.

A canadian soldier broke the world record for the furthest distance single bullet shot. this was done in afghanastan using a .50 cal. can't remember how far the shot was but I think it was 1800m... maybe more... A bullet is a bullet why care if its a big one or not :s. fair enough if your debating hard pionts and soft pionts... but calibre? why bother.

Answer 4

Bejeezus, Political correct war?
what ever happened to winning?
wars arent school yard fights.
What enemy state that you know of heeds the geneva convention?
Is chopping off heads against the geneva convention?
What was the question again?

Answer 5

it is not. i've got examine interior the direction of the Geneva convention, and that they do no longer limit using enormous high quality weapons. human beings additionally point out the Geneva convention banning napalm, yet this is likewise fake. that is asserted interior the United international locations convention on specific commonplace weapons that that's prohibited to apply against civilian populations, yet no longer military objectives.

Answer 6

back in the seventies, it was "common knowledge" that you were technically supposed to use a 50 cal. to shoot at equipment, not humans, because of the geneva convention. this was not based on fact. the geneva convention speaks of not causing "unnecessary suffering", but does directly address the 50 cal. it was a rumor that somehow took root and became one of those "facts" that "everybody knows".

Answer 7

Also, the purpose of a .50 cal sniper rifle is to take out light equipment, generators for example. But it works on LBE's or AK47's also.

Answer 8

WHO BUT THE US ACTUALLY FOLLOW THE GENEVA CONVENTION. THE BAD GUYS SURE DO NT. 50 CAL OR 22 CAL WHO CARES ,BOTH KILL JUST AS EFFICIENTLY.
I KNOW OF NO SUCH RULE AGAINST THE USES OF 50 CAL WEAPONS

Answer 9

I personally prefer a depleted uranium tank shell for each of the enemy but the Democrats think that is excessive.